Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SHAMIM AHMED, J
Selvakumar – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) – Respondent
Writ Petition | Article 226
For the Appellants/Petitioners: No appearance
For the Respondents: No appearance
Court dismissed the petition due to lack of appearance from petitioner and counsel, indicating no interest in proceeding.
Headnote:The judgment concerns the interpretation of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the petitioner for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus. The petitioner sought to quash the order rejecting his appeal regarding gratuity payment. The Court found sufficient grounds to dismiss the case due to the absence of representation from both sides, indicating a lack of interest. The Court dismissed the case for want of prosecution.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. absence of appearance leads to case dismissal. (Para 1) |
| 2. court can dismiss for lack of prosecution. (Para 2) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED Selvakumar ..Petitioner Vs
1. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Shastri Bhawan, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006
2. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)
and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Shastri Bhawan, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.
3. The Chief General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office No.524, Anna Salai, Teyampet, Chennai 600 018.
4. The Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Canara Bank, Head Office, No. 112, J C Road Bangalore 560 002 ..Respondents Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for all the records relating to the order dated 21.12.2021 made in Appeal No.93/2020 on the file of the 1st respondent rejecting the Appeal of the petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to pay the gratuity payable to the petitioner along with simple interest at 12.00 percentage p.a. from
07.09.2010 to till date of actual payment For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
When the matter is taken up for consideration in the revised call, no one appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Even the learned counsel for the Respondents is also not present. The matter is of the year 2022. It appears that the Petitioner as well as his Counsel has no interest to pursue the matter any further. Accordingly, the case is dismissed for want of Prosecution. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. There is no order as to costs.
